- 12 -
husband for the tax periods in question, the tax and
related statutory additions are attributable to her
husband.
Her husband has been an employed physician during those
tax periods and generated the income that created the
corresponding tax liability. The taxpayer was aware of
the tax liability from previous notices and prior tax
actions that were acted upon her husband’s accounts,
[sic] however, she believed to her detriment that a
plan for payment of the tax liability had been reached
between her husband and the Internal Revenue Service.
Most recently, she was aware that her husband had paid
in over $20,000 as part of his agreement with the
Service.
The taxpayer has generated her own income starting in
the tax year 2000 and will be responsible for any
related tax issues from that period forward. The
taxpayer received a notice of levy that was issued to
her real estate broker dated 05-23-01, and this was her
first realization that there was a problem. In fact,
the address listed on the notice for the taxpayer is
not her own, but her husband’s business address.
Although the taxpayer may be legally married to her
husband, she has not generated any significant income
during the tax periods in question that would create
the tax liability. Not only is this an inequitable
situation for the taxpayer, the taxpayer will
definitely suffer significant hardship from this
current levy and any others that may be pending. Her
only income source is with the real estate broker
* * * , and these unjust levy actions unfairly restrict
the taxpayer’s ability to earn a living.
Petitioner signed the Form 8857. The Form 8857 had been prepared
by petitioner’s accountant.
By Notices dated February 13 and April 24, 2002, respondent
denied petitioner’s request for any relief under section 6015.
In the February 13, 2002, Notice, respondent determined that
petitioner was not entitled to relief for 1979 under section
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011